Author
Topic: Photographer logo? (Read 21825 times)

Part of my business name is my last name, as it's fairly unique, but that was also to ensure that it would be noticeable, and I would know for a fact that nobody else would already have used it. I'm not a fan of having a lot of text or words in a watermark, instead a simplified version of my main logo or the font used for the business name. As previously stated I dislike a watermark that is too busy and derails my main purpose of enjoying the photo.

Do ya'll have opinion one way or the other....regarding having your NAME as part of your business name and logo?

Do you feel it is better to put your first and last (or one or the other) as part of your company name, or do you feel it is better to have a company name that is not your name?

You think it is better to have Joe Shmoe Photography, or better to maybe have XYZ Photography, and maybe on your images have something like "XYZ Photography by Joe Shmoe"....

Just curious. I'm a bit of a privacy concious person, I don't do facebook, twitter..etc.

However, I would consider possibly having a FB account, but I'd rather ONLY put company info there and leave my name out of it....so, wondering if ya'll see that as a negative affect on a business...or does it make any difference whatsoever?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne

I think a name is good for a photography brand. Depends on the name I suppose. You might solve your dilemma by using an alias, as opposed to your real name or the usual "[insert fancy adjective] Photography". You have the freedom to choose exactly the name you want... plan a seo-friendly URL, plan something that won't leave you being forced to use horizontal AND vertical versions AND alternative/simplified versions...

I've got first name, middle initial and surname as my business name. But my choice of business name was solely to assist clients from my previous job find me. (I was under a restraint of trade agreement that prevented me from contacting them directly, but which didn't stop them from approaching me). I've often thought of changing my business name, but in my industry, the choice of a business isn't really crucial to my success, and because of regulatory and licencing reasons, I've decided it is easier to stick with the same name.

However, if I was starting from a zero base, I'd choose a catchy name instead. When operating under your own name, people have the perception that you are a small suburban outfit. That might also imply that you might not have the range of people with the right skills or expertise for all jobs. It also means that everyone that calls up wants to deal you with you - They feel like second-class clients if you don't have the time to look after them personally. Using an alternative name makes your branding, marketing and advertising easier. It possibly also makes it easier to sell your business for more money.

Short answer: only operate under your own name if you want to portray yourself as offering a very personalised exprience or if your market is such that nobody cares what you are called. It is ideal for those who want to keep things small with minimal other staff. But for everyone else, just choose a different name.

I like to blend it into the remaining picture so that it does not disturb the viewer

Is it the case you have two versions of the logo, one black, one white, and you manually pick one of them according to the pic, or did you find a more automatic way of doing that? I also noticed the logo position varies, so I assume it's something you carefully choose for each pic. Am I right?

(I can image a rule like: if the overall luminance of the part of the image where the logo will be is dark, use white logo, otherwise use black logo. But I don't think lightroom or similar support this)

We've come up with the logo by ourselves as well. The key attributes are:- self-identification: viewer should be able to identify who the photographer is;- unobtrusiveness: viewer should see the image first, and the logo - second.

I see how you can create a logo and store it as a brush, and easily "stamp" your logo on images.

I'm curious....that process is ok if you're only doing a few images at a time.

But what if you have 100+ images you need to get out with a logo or watermark on them? Do ya'll program a PS action for this or what?

I've not gotten to 'actions' yet....but have heard about them.

Thanks in advance,

cayenne

If you create a logo in photoshop and then save it as a PNG you can then use it in Lightroom. In LR go to edit > edit watermarks > and then click on the "choose" button in the Image options tab in the top right hand corner (you can also click on the "Graphic" option too which does the same thing). Find the PNG file and boom you're done. Now you can select multiple images and export with your watermark.

I see how you can create a logo and store it as a brush, and easily "stamp" your logo on images.

I'm curious....that process is ok if you're only doing a few images at a time.

But what if you have 100+ images you need to get out with a logo or watermark on them? Do ya'll program a PS action for this or what?

I've not gotten to 'actions' yet....but have heard about them.

Thanks in advance,

cayenne

If you create a logo in photoshop and then save it as a PNG you can then use it in Lightroom. In LR go to edit > edit watermarks > and then click on the "choose" button in the Image options tab in the top right hand corner (you can also click on the "Graphic" option too which does the same thing). Find the PNG file and boom you're done. Now you can select multiple images and export with your watermark.

Or better yet, create it in illustrator and save as .eps (if you have Illustrator).